BackgroundDengue is the most prevalent mosquito borne infection worldwide. Vertical transmissions after maternal dengue infection to the fetus and pregnancy losses in relation to dengue illness have been reported. The relationship of dengue to miscarriage is not known.MethodWe aimed to establish the relationship of recent dengue infection and miscarriage. Women who presented with miscarriage (up to 22 weeks gestation) to our hospital were approached to participate in the study. For each case of miscarriage, we recruited 3 controls with viable pregnancies at a similar gestation. A brief questionnaire on recent febrile illness and prior dengue infection was answered. Blood was drawn from participants, processed and the frozen serum was stored. Stored sera were thawed and then tested in batches with dengue specific IgM capture ELISA, dengue non-structural protein 1 (NS1) antigen and dengue specific IgG ELISA tests. Controls remained in the analysis if their pregnancies continued beyond 22 weeks gestation. Tests were run on 116 case and 341 control sera. One case (a misdiagnosed viable early pregnancy) plus 45 controls (39 lost to follow up and six subsequent late miscarriages) were excluded from analysis.FindingsDengue specific IgM or dengue NS1 antigen (indicating recent dengue infection) was positive in 6/115 (5·2%) cases and 5/296 (1·7%) controls RR 3·1 (95% CI 1·0–10) P = 0·047. Maternal age, gestational age, parity and ethnicity were dissimilar between cases and controls. After adjustments for these factors, recent dengue infection remained significantly more frequently detected in cases than controls (AOR 4·2 95% CI 1·2–14 P = 0·023).InterpretationRecent dengue infections were more frequently detected in women presenting with miscarriage than in controls whose pregnancies were viable. After adjustments for confounders, the positive association remained.
BackgroundExternal cephalic version (ECV) is offered to reduce the number of Caesarean delivery indicated by breech presentation which occurs in 3-4% of term pregnancies. ECV is commonly performed aided by the application of aqueous gel or talcum powder to the maternal abdomen. We sought to compare gel with powder during ECV on achieving successful version and increasing tolerability.MethodWe enrolled 95 women (≥ 36 weeks gestation) on their attendance for planned ECV. All participants received terbutaline tocolysis. Regional anaesthesia was not used. ECV was performed in the standard fashion after the application of the allocated aid. If the first round (maximum of 2 attempts) of ECV failed, crossover to the opposing aid was permitted.Results48 women were randomised to powder and 47 to gel. Self-reported procedure related median [interquartile range] pain scores (using a 10-point visual numerical rating scale VNRS; low score more pain) were 6 [5-9] vs. 8 [7-9] P = 0.03 in favor of gel. ECV was successful in 21/48 (43.8%) vs. 26/47 (55.3%) RR 0.6 95% CI 0.3-1.4 P = 0.3 for powder and gel arms respectively. Crossover to the opposing aid and a second round of ECV was performed in 13/27 (48.1%) following initial failure with powder and 4/21 (19%) after failure with gel (RR 3.9 95% CI 1.0-15 P = 0.07). ECV success rate was 5/13 (38.5%) vs. 1/4 (25%) P = 0.99 after crossover use of gel or powder respectively. Operators reported higher satisfaction score with the use of gel (high score, greater satisfaction) VNRS scores 6 [4.25-8] vs 8 [7-9] P = 0.01.ConclusionWomen find gel use to be associated with less pain. The ECV success rate is not significantly different.Trial registrationThe trial is registered with ISRCTN (identifier ISRCTN87231556).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.